Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint flags, so the bar is lower. The description adds the cost and the fact that it produces findings, but it does not elaborate on side effects, external calls, or the meaning of openWorldHint in practice. It does not contradict the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence plus a pricing note. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, and the cost information is relevant. It could be slightly longer to cover key usage details, but for what it does include, it is efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters, nested objects, a oneOf conditional, and no output schema, the description is far too brief to be complete. It does not explain the two input modes (rows vs datasetId), what the findings look like, or any prerequisite setup. The schema is complex and the description leaves most of that unexplained, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 11% (just requestId has a description). The tool description does not compensate for this lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'supplied US retail evidence' but does not explain the crucial oneOf between rows and datasetId, the datasetCoverage requirement, or the option fields. The complex schema is underspecified, and the description doesn't help.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Process') and states the resource ('supplied US retail evidence') and the outputs ('MAP, availability, baseline, and review findings'). This is clear and distinct from the sibling tools, which are about app releases, competitor ads, and pricing info. However, it does not explicitly say how it differs from pricing_info, so it loses a point for not fully distinguishing itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The description only says to process retail evidence but does not indicate when this is the right choice or when another tool would be better. This makes it hard for an agent to select it confidently.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.